Fodor's LOT Foddered

[FlashDangerpants]

The OP was meant to throw a 'stinger' [ - borrow fm FJ] to those [PH and his likes] who insist 'language is king'.

Can anybody explain what the fuck his rationale for that is?

I've never seen Pete write anything that rests on any particular theory of semantic content or mental representation.

[Iwannaplato]

I did not claim any complete victory [yeah I win .. I win] by merely throwing in Churchland's views.
That was never my intention.

The OP was meant to throw a 'stinger' [ - borrow fm FJ] to those [PH and his likes] who insist 'language is king'.

A stinger is....

Definitions of stinger. a remark capable of wounding mentally. synonyms: cut. type of: abuse, contumely, insult, revilement, vilification. a rude expression intended to offend or hurt.

Sounds like 1) a very emotional choice 2) It is directly generally. 3) It frames your OP as having destroyed the opinion you disagree with, which it does not.

And you have a habit of doing such things.

You use a stinger or label your opponent with insulting terms regularly.

But then you chastize them for responding with emotion.

Consider the maturity of such a pattern. Consider how it might come across as dogmatic. Another quality you claim to be critical of.

[Iwannaplato]

The OP was meant to throw a 'stinger' [ - borrow fm FJ] to those [PH and his likes] who insist 'language is king'.

Can anybody explain what the fuck his rationale for that is?

I've never seen Pete write anything that rests on any particular theory of semantic content or mental representation.

In part that's what I meant earlier. I assumed it was critical of a position that PH (supposedly) has. But given that he relied on Chatgpt and not his own argument and further that his only framing of the issue was that it destroyed the opposing poisition, there's no point in responding with anything but some linked to or copy pasted rebuttal.

I did present him with a reviewed that offered a critique of Churchland's position. He doesn't seem interested in actually arguing in favor of the Chatgpt position - or even asking the AI to respond.

So, there's no context really for the OP.

Perhaps he'll bring one up at some point, who knows?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not claim any complete victory [yeah I win .. I win] by merely throwing in Churchland's views.
That was never my intention.

The OP was meant to throw a 'stinger' [ - borrow fm FJ] to those [PH and his likes] who insist 'language is king'.

A stinger is....

Definitions of stinger. a remark capable of wounding mentally. synonyms: cut. type of: abuse, contumely, insult, revilement, vilification. a rude expression intended to offend or hurt.

Sounds like 1) a very emotional choice 2) It is directly generally. 3) It frames your OP as having destroyed the opinion you disagree with, which it does not.

And you have a habit of doing such things.

You use a stinger or label your opponent with insulting terms regularly.

But then you chastize them for responding with emotion.

Consider the maturity of such a pattern. Consider how it might come across as dogmatic. Another quality you claim to be critical of.

As I had claimed I will never initiate any attacks unless initiated by the other.
However, I feel it is not personal to assert a person is arguing on a basis of ignorance, shallow, narrow, dogmatic thinking and grounded on psychological motivations which I will explain why, so that the person can use his discretion to widen his knowledge.
I will welcome the above criticisms [if justifications provided] as there may be opportunities [if any] for improvements.

However, I am not a 'saint' and will counter attack if attacked.

In general I prefer an amicable mode of discussion for any extended discussion on a topic.

[FlashDangerpants]

Is VA capable of explaining why Churchland vs Fodor has anything at all to do with Pete?

So far, it seems not.

[Iwannaplato]

As I had claimed I will never initiate any attacks unless initiated by the other.

You started a thread with a stinger. You didn't post your stinger in an already existing thread in reponse to an attack initiated to another person. Who was the stinger aimed at?

However, I feel it is not personal to assert a person is arguing on a basis of ignorance, shallow, narrow, dogmatic thinking and grounded on psychological motivations which I will explain why, so that the person can use his discretion to widen his knowledge.

It actually is personal and beyond that it's not necessary. You simply point out the flaws in the argument. Or provide counterexamples, etc. The last in that list is mindreading. It's an ad hom and an insult. If you present your ideas well then it will be clear that there are problems with the arguments.

How can it possibly not be personal? You are talking about a specific person's problems AND NOT their arguments. Ignorance is a quality people have not arguments. Dogmatic thinking and psychological motivations are things that people have not arguments.

There's no need for it. I realize that people have been rude to you and I understand responding with rudeness to rudeness. But as justified by yourself above you do what most people would call insulting people first, without you already being attacked.

And in this thread there was no reason to start with a stinger. It's a general thread. It's not a specific call for a one on one debate. It is factually misleading: Churchland's critique did not destroy Fodor's position. And it certainly doesn't come across as someone want discussion and debate.

And so far you don't seem interested in justifying the OP's assertions in relation to the criticism's I posted in response. Or you could interact with the information in the link you asked for and which I gave you.

And given that you started with a stinger, it seems like you are trying to provoke someone. We're guessing that it has something to do with Peter Holmes' positions. Fine. How does the OP, Fodor and Churchland relate to PH or whomever the stinger was aimed at?

[Flannel Jesus]

However, I feel it is not personal to assert a person is arguing on a basis of ignorance, shallow, narrow, dogmatic thinking and grounded on psychological motivations which I will explain why, so that the person can use his discretion to widen his knowledge.

It actually is personal and beyond that it's not necessary.

How could that not be personal? That doesn't mean it's incorrect, but it's obviously personal.

VA more than almost anybody is quick to hand wave an argument away for absurd reasons. "You're just criticizing me because blah blah blah", ok, so?

[Iwannaplato]

However, I feel it is not personal to assert a person is arguing on a basis of ignorance, shallow, narrow, dogmatic thinking and grounded on psychological motivations which I will explain why, so that the person can use his discretion to widen his knowledge.

It actually is personal and beyond that it's not necessary.

How could that not be personal? That doesn't mean it's incorrect, but it's obviously personal.

VA more than almost anybody is quick to hand wave an argument away for absurd reasons. "You're just criticizing me because blah blah blah", ok, so?

It's an ironic challenge to explain the obvious.

And the opening 'I feel.....'

in that sentence......

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had claimed I will never initiate any attacks unless initiated by the other.

You started a thread with a stinger. You didn't post your stinger in an already existing thread in reponse to an attack initiated to another person. Who was the stinger aimed at?

The OP is more of an 'attention getter' like headlines in News, adverts and other media.
I have also raised quite a number of thread related to the Philosophy of Language.
Regardless, ultimately this is thread for discussion and debate, open to whatever related views.

However, I feel it is not personal to assert a person is arguing on a basis of ignorance, shallow, narrow, dogmatic thinking and grounded on psychological motivations which I will explain why, so that the person can use his discretion to widen his knowledge.

It actually is personal and beyond that it's not necessary. You simply point out the flaws in the argument. Or provide counterexamples, etc. The last in that list is mindreading. It's an ad hom and an insult. If you present your ideas well then it will be clear that there are problems with the arguments.

How can it possibly not be personal? You are talking about a specific person's problems AND NOT their arguments. Ignorance is a quality people have not arguments. Dogmatic thinking and psychological motivations are things that people have not arguments.

There's no need for it. I realize that people have been rude to you and I understand responding with rudeness to rudeness. But as justified by yourself above you do what most people would call insulting people first, without you already being attacked.

And in this thread there was no reason to start with a stinger. It's a general thread. It's not a specific call for a one on one debate. It is factually misleading: Churchland's critique did not destroy Fodor's position. And it certainly doesn't come across as someone want discussion and debate.

And so far you don't seem interested in justifying the OP's assertions in relation to the criticism's I posted in response. Or you could interact with the information in the link you asked for and which I gave you.

And given that you started with a stinger, it seems like you are trying to provoke someone. We're guessing that it has something to do with Peter Holmes' positions. Fine. How does the OP, Fodor and Churchland relate to PH or whomever the stinger was aimed at?

It is not realistic just to focus on arguments and posts alone.
I have been in Philosophical Forum long enough to note the various underlying psychological issues underlying all the various disagreements and the emotional expressions associated with the posts.
When posters get emotional and go into rage, they are engaging more of their emotional faculties in the limbic parts than their rational faculties in the neo-cortex; as a normal human being, my emotional faculties are also triggered which reduced my rational competence which is critically necessary to deal with complex philosophical issues. As such I have to manage my triggered emotional responses; so I rather avoid it [where I have a discretion] rather than have to be bothered with it.
So it is an intelligent question to ask the 'WHYs' of the above rages and madness.

I believe the poster's psychological basis is critical to understand how the beliefs are held by the believer.
It is obvious we need to take into account the posts of schizophrenics [& other mental cases] who post without their meds.
Note also those with autistic traits who do not have a 'theory of mind' and cannot view the whole picture.
Philosophical realists and theists psychology are more subtle. The both share the same sense of absolute mind-independence where their psychological basis must be taken into account. [note my evolutionary default thread].

I have been through the psychological realism and theism ideology; so I am familiar with the psychological forces involved.

I don't mind anyone discussing the psychological basis of empirical realism subsumed within Transcendental Idealism.

I believe wisdom is needed and it is unwise to ignore the psychological basis of posters in a discussion and debate, where is matters especially in very complex philosophical issues; otherwise each will keep talking pass each other till the cows come home.

I understand the situation, I am exploiting this 'till the cows come home' state where I think it 'selfishly' benefits me and avoid those that don't.

Here is one good example, why understanding the poster's psychological background is critical;

I was afraid because I had no idea nor did I understand what was going on and I let my fear get the best of me and responded by trying to be controlling and shutting people down.
viewtopic.php?p=658460#p658460

The point is, if the person above did not declare his emotional state which had effected his responses and will ever do that, then, it would be wise to understand his psychological state on our own.
The above is typical and expected from one who hold a philosophical realist's position which trigger the psychology of fear, strong defense mechanism, going into rage, simply attack, attack & attack and the like.

[Iwannaplato]

First off, I see no interest on your part in dealing with the critiques of Churchland's critique that I posted. Nor your explanation of how the OP relates to PH's position. If you really wanted to discuss the issue feel free to.

The OP is more of an 'attention getter' like headlines in News, adverts and other media.
I have also raised quite a number of thread related to the Philosophy of Language.
Regardless, ultimately this is thread for discussion and debate, open to whatever related views.

Well, now you've heard that it comes off as if you think the opposed view has been defeated, period. Which fits with other habits you have. Instead of saying you disagree, you tell the people you disagree with what is wrong with them, rather than or in addition to telling them what is wrong with their arguments.
You called it a stinger, now you call it an attention getter. I think it's just poor framing.
That feedback will affect you or not.

It is not realistic just to focus on arguments and posts alone.

Of course that would be realistic.

I have been in Philosophical Forum long enough to note the various underlying psychological issues underlying all the various disagreements and the emotional expressions associated with the posts.

Of course.

When posters get emotional and go into rage, they are engaging more of their emotional faculties in the limbic parts than their rational faculties in the neo-cortex; as a normal human being, my emotional faculties are also triggered which reduced my rational competence which is critically necessary to deal with complex philosophical issues. As such I have to manage my triggered emotional responses; so I rather avoid it [where I have a discretion] rather than have to be bothered with it.
So it is an intelligent question to ask the 'WHYs' of the above rages and madness.

It's actually a different topic. If you are arguing with a theist who has presented an argument for God, you focus on the argument they put forward and counter their critiques of your arguments. A separate thread can focus on the topic of the psychology of theists. The moment you add in the latter discussion in the former you are going ad hom which is a fallacy and likely insulting them.

I understand that people get ad hommy and insulting with you. If that happens, I agree, then it's fair game to return the 'favor'.

You've gotten feedback about that now. It will affect you or it won't.

My main response to this thread is actually how the way you framed the issue - as settled and won by one side - is misleading and fits a pattern of how you respond to others.

Here is one good example, why understanding the poster's psychological background is critical;

I was afraid because I had no idea nor did I understand what was going on and I let my fear get the best of me and responded by trying to be controlling and shutting people down.
viewtopic.php?p=658460#p658460

Yeah, that was great. He opened up and admitted something.

That doesn't justify going ad hom on people who haven't done that to you. You showing me that post assumes, it seems, that I don't realize that psychology underlies the way people post and react to the posts of others. Trust me I know this.

In response to PH saying that you don't admit being wrong, etc., you said that you have done this in the past.

I assume you were Spectrum. But I don't remember Spectrum conceding anything significant. You said you were a theist (I guess you were not a Christian, since you denied that. What kind of Christian were you?

Can you link to a place where you conceded in response to someone's post that you were wrong about theism?

Because that seems implicit in how you responded to PH

The point is, if the person above did not declare his emotional state which had effected his responses and will ever do that, then, it would be wise to understand his psychological state on our own.
The above is typical and expected from one who hold a philosophical realist's position which trigger the psychology of fear, strong defense mechanism, going into rage, simply attack, attack & attack and the like.

I'm sorry, but ANYONE even an antirealist can have defense mechanisms. People are attached to their positions and can be stubborn, jump to ad homs, not respond to points they don't know how to rather than admitting that, avoid conceding anything and so on regardless of what position it is. It's human nature which does not just disappear when one becomes an antirealist or dualist or monist or atheist or whatever.

Unless you have some evidence that antirealists are less attached to their positions, less violent, less stubborn, more willing admit mistakes, less likely to use ad homs and insults and other fallacies and so on.

Link me to the research if you like.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First off, I see no interest on your part in dealing with the critiques of Churchland's critique that I posted. Nor your explanation of how the OP relates to PH's position. If you really wanted to discuss the issue feel free to.

I have read Churchland's book. Have you?
Generally if I were to throw in reviews I will read a few reviews from both sides, i.e. those that apposed and those that support.
If you are serious I suggest you do that.

In general Fodor's thesis is based on the point that there are specific neural algorithms that support the elements of language.

Churchland on the other hand disagreed and countered that language is supported by a complex set of neural algorithms.
It just like Morality cannot be confined solely to empathy and mirror neurons.

It is not realistic just to focus on arguments and posts alone.

Of course that would be realistic.

It's actually a different topic. If you are arguing with a theist who has presented an argument for God, you focus on the argument they put forward and counter their critiques of your arguments.
A separate thread can focus on the topic of the psychology of theists. The moment you add in the latter discussion in the former you are going ad hom which is a fallacy and likely insulting them.

I understand that people get ad hommy and insulting with you. If that happens, I agree, then it's fair game to return the 'favor'.[/quote]
From my experience I believe it is critical to bring in the psychological aspects when discussing theism and philosophical realism there and then rather than direct it to somewhere where the impact is lessened.
This is a critical part of human nature and one need to understand what are the psychological impulses that are driving one to adopt and cling to certain beliefs like theism and philosophical realism.

Yes, I do agree this move is ad hominen but I want to make such a move as the exception.

I will avoid and reject ad hominens related to attacking the person pejoratively, derogatorily, dehumanizing, with vulgarities, on personality, status, etc.

[FlashDangerpants]

What the fuck is going on? This thread is supposed to be a .... 'stinger' aimed at Pete...

The OP was meant to throw a 'stinger' [ - borrow fm FJ] to those [PH and his likes] who insist 'language is king'.

But what the fuck has this....

In general Fodor's thesis is based on the point that there are specific neural algorithms that support the elements of language.

Got to do with Pete?

[Iwannaplato]

In general Fodor's thesis is based on the point that there are specific neural algorithms that support the elements of language.

Churchland on the other hand disagreed and countered that language is supported by a complex set of neural algorithms.

So far, it looks like they are saying the same thing.

It just like Morality cannot be confined solely to empathy and mirror neurons.

Did Churchland say this?

I still see no effort in this thread to
1) explain what the Fodor/Churchland disagreement has to do with Peter Holme's position.
2) to respond to the counterarguments I presents in that review in my first post.

Number 1 is more important.